House passes Senate health care bill

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

I've read all that and can certainly appreciate where they're coming from. But he's so wrong. Healthcare insurance is NOT interstate commerce. It is by LAW not allowed to be INTERSTATE. Tort reform? Yeah, they choose not to go down that route, so how the hell can they use the interstate commerce clause to justify forcing people to buy health insurance?

As far as I'm concerned they're using the Commerce Clause to justify forcing people to buy healthcare insurance and it simply doesn't fly.

It doesn't fly because refraining from purchasing insurance is by definition not engaging in commerce and FedGov has no right to mandate a lack of commerce.

Otherwise, you have to float the stupid idea that merely being alive is somehow interstate commerce and then there would be no limit to the commerce clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything you(speaking to Americans) do, which clearly is not the intention of the clause.

I think you're all forgetting what this 'fine' actually is. It IS a tax on living. People are going to be punished for choosing not to do something.

Here is what Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown had to say about it.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031901470.html

In regards to the 10th amendment. From the same article.



I dare someone to make this a black and white issue. Because you have respected Georgetown Law professors saying its a VERY grey area, to the extent that the Supreme Court could force the Democrats to ratify it, and Erwin Chemernisky, another highly respected constitutional lawyer saying it is constitutional.

You read all of it? I don't think so, or at least not the part about how not engaging in commercial activity has been expressly held to be part of interstate commerce and subject to congressional power.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Azure

Uhhh, yeah?

I have a problem with any government forcing me to do anything.

Even if, even in part, what they're "forcing" you to do is for the safety and well-being of those around you? When you say "anything," does that include following a country's specific laws?

Anything seems unreasonable if you wish to live in a society while also receiving the benefits of it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Really Azure, the logical extension of your argument is that if I choose to not buy insurance then a doctor has the same right - to refuse to treat me until payed.

If you choose not to buy health insurance then no insurance company is going to pay your bills for it. And yes, in a 'free market system'....a doctor certainly has the right not to treat you until you pay for the services.

It's actually quite reasonable, if you are bankrupt then a restaurant isn't required by law to feed you and if you are homeless then a hotel is not required by law to house you. Both hypotheticals can be equally as urgent but the government demands more of the health care industry.
And, just like any other industry, the paying customer always absorbs an arbitrary burden.

Oh, now I see where you're going with this. You're again, missing the point.

The issue is solely with whether or not this issue is constitutional or not.

I'm not arguing about the moral side of it, or whether or not smokers and fat people should pay more because they're a bigger burden, etc, etc.

Not even going there.

I'm JUST talking about the legal side here.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

I dare someone to make this a black and white issue. Because you have respected Georgetown Law professors saying its a VERY grey area, to the extent that the Supreme Court could force the Democrats to ratify it, and Erwin Chemernisky, another highly respected constitutional lawyer saying it is constitutional.

This is a black and white issue. Your quote included the phrase "force to purchase" - that's not what this is.

The government requires a hospital to treat an uninsured patients.
The paying customers reimburse the hospital for these uninsured patients.
Some of the uninsured patients have the money but are gaming the system.

Really, the government is mandating that the large risk-averse population subsidize the poor, alien and the risky. This bill efforts to take "and the risky" out of the subsidized group.



I do agree with the constitutional argument, but the case to be made is that it is unconstitutional for the system force patients to pay for care other than their own - one I support in the abstract but oppose in reality.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Even if, even in part, what they're "forcing" you to do is for the safety and well-being of those around you? When you say "anything," does that include following a country's specific laws?

Anything seems unreasonable if you wish to live in a society while also receiving the benefits of it.

Safety and well-being?

Are you kidding me? How does having insurance make it safer for everyone else on the road?

And don't throw is 'follow the law' crap into the argument either. There is no legal basis for anything that you're suggesting, and that is exactly where I'm coming from.

The legal side.

You want to argue whether or not people should be required to have health insurance because they're a drain on society if they don't start a new thread.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Safety and well-being?

Are you kidding me? How does having insurance make it safer for everyone else on the road?

And don't throw is 'follow the law' crap into the argument either. There is no legal basis for anything that you're suggesting, and that is exactly where I'm coming from.

The legal side.

You want to argue whether or not people should be required to have health insurance because they're a drain on society if they don't start a new thread.

I read that as an argument that people who don't start new threads are a drain on society, which would lead to a lot of fatas I imagine.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

This is a black and white issue. Your quote included the phrase "force to purchase" - that's not what this is.

Fine.

A law that FINES you if you don't have insurance. Which in effect will force a lot of people to get health insurance.

The government requires a hospital to treat an uninsured patients.
The paying customers reimburse the hospital for these uninsured patients.
Some of the uninsured patients have the money but are gaming the system.

Uhhh, the way I read it is that emergency care will not be refused to anyone. Even if they can't pay.

But yeah, I get what you mean.

Really, the government is mandating that the large risk-averse population subsidize the poor, alien and the risky. This bill efforts to take "and the risky" out of the subsidized group.

I do agree with the constitutional argument, but the case to be made is that it is unconstitutional for the system force patients to pay for care other than their own - one I support in the abstract but oppose in reality.

Hey I would tend to agree. Surprise, surprise.

But again, I'm not talking about that side of the argument here.

If the federal government would enact legislation that would require all states to ensure that all its citizens are covered by health care, and Congress would pass that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Instead we're all wondering how the federal government can create a law that fines people for not doing something. Rightly or wrongly.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you choose not to buy health insurance then no insurance company is going to pay your bills for it. And yes, in a 'free market system'....a doctor certainly has the right not to treat you until you pay for the services.

No, they don't. At least not emergencies.

The law requires the doctor to treat the patient.

That is the constitutional falling off point - government removing the right to choose.
In the same vein, Suzy Sixpack is required to reimburse that doctor if she wants to purchase health insurance, where are her rights?

The system is already unfair, this is a minor element to the process that efforts to remove those taking unfair advantage of the system.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm very curious how a 'interstate' commerce clause can apply to a product that is essentially not allowed to be 'interstate.'

That's basically what they decided with regards to marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich. Kennedy and Scalia wanted to ban marijuana so they fudged their way through the legal reasoning to make it happen. They came out the other way in U.S. v. Morrison and U.S. v. Lopez though, because they didn't like the laws at issue there. Something tells me that they won't like this health care bill, but there's precedent to support either outcome at this point.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No, they don't. At least not emergencies.

The law requires the doctor to treat the patient.

That is the constitutional falling off point - government removing the right to choose.
In the same vein, Suzy Sixpack is required to reimburse that doctor if she wants to purchase health insurance, where are her rights?

The system is already unfair, this is a minor element to the process that efforts to remove those taking unfair advantage of the system.

Yes, I get that.....and I agree that emergency patients are a drain on society.

Just like smokers, drinkers, etc, etc.

Say it like it is....the system is completely screwed up.

My hope is that with finally getting some idea of 'reform' through the door a Republican Congress will be able to come up with something worthwhile and work with Obama and his people to REALLY reform the system.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

But again, I'm not talking about that side of the argument here.

The common sense side?

Why not?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, I get that.....and I agree that emergency patients are a drain on society.

Just like smokers, drinkers, etc, etc.

Say it like it is....the system is completely screwed up.

Emergency patients are a drain on society, but who specifically is paying their bills?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Instead we're all wondering how the federal government can create a law that fines people for not doing something. Rightly or wrongly.

Don't they fine people for not doing something all the time? If you don't get your driver's license, pay your taxes, keep your yard clean, have automobile insurance... they can and do fine you.

I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but this "the government can't make you do something you don't want" line of argument seems awfully flimsy.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by gargamel

That's basically what they decided with regards to marijuana in Gonzales v. Raich. Kennedy and Scalia wanted to ban marijuana so they fudged their way through the legal reasoning to make it happen. They came out the other way in U.S. v. Morrison and U.S. v. Lopez though, because they didn't like the laws at issue there. Something tells me that they won't like this health care bill, but there's precedent to support either outcome at this point.

Yeah, I just got finished reading about the legal marijuana issue.

It really could go either way. Like I said, in a legal sense....it certainly isn't black and white.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

The common sense side?

Why not?

Because I agree with it.

I just don't think its constitutional to go about fixing it the way this bill wants too.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Don't they fine people for not doing something all the time? If you don't get your driver's license, pay your taxes, keep your yard clean, have automobile insurance... they can and do fine you.

I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but this "the government can't make you do something you don't want" line of argument seems awfully flimsy.

Did I not say Federal Government? Cause that is who I was talking about.

Municipal governments getting involved in keeping your yard clean, and state governments getting involved in you having a drivers license....these are all different issues. According to each state/province, these laws are different.

But here we're talking about the federal government through some BS ruling forcing people to buy a commercial product.

Rightly or wrongly.

Gozer's side of the argument really does hold a lot of water. In a sense I would tend to agree. But man, this bill really does create a lot of controversy.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because I agree with it.

I just don't think its constitutional to go about fixing it the way this bill wants too.

edit - withdrawn, inflammatory

[Jonrox]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Don't they fine people for not doing something all the time? If you don't get your driver's license, pay your taxes, keep your yard clean, have automobile insurance... they can and do fine you.

I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but this "the government can't make you do something you don't want" line of argument seems awfully flimsy.

This is why I just don't understand most Americans. They have no problem being forced to pay for some services that are essentially socialized. They don't question their tax dollars going to pay for police coverage, fire department coverage, or garbage collection. They don't fight tooth and nail for the ability to choose the security force that enforces the laws of their country, responds to their house burning down, or keeps their garbage from piling up - they're quite fine using the same system that's in place for the rich, poor, and everyone inbetween. They view these as essential services that are the right of every citizen.

But for some reason healthcare is different.

With healthcare, they couldn't care less if their neighbor died from cancer because he had a pre-existing condition. They think it's fine that families lose their homes because of a heart attack. I can't understand why they view healthcare as a non-essential service that isn't the right of every citizen. It's life and death. It's something that should be a basic human right.

They need to realize that sometimes it's not about the right to choose or what's constitutional. Sometimes it's just about doing what's right.

[Sluggo]

Round two Fight!

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Round two Fight!

The media likes to make it seem more dramatic than it is. This is just part of the byzantine and clunky procedure of creating law in the U.S. The House will vote by the end of the week and the outcome will be the same.

It's about as likely to be meaningful as the blinkered constitutional challenge.

I actually think the GOP is making a huge mistake here. They've cast themselves as the "party of NO," and in the process have alienated the center in order to appeal to their shrinking base. This is, in fact, exactly what I would have counseled them NOT to do after Obama's win.

In the meantime, Obama's numbers are up, health care's numbers are up, the media narrative is that Obama is a reformer (remember, people don't care about the details) and the Republicans are obstructionists.

If they continue down this path, they've basically handed Obama another term. And they had a huge opportunity when he failed to immediately deliver on his promises of reform. Who advises these nimrods?